Civil Model Jury Charge 3.30D ABUSE OF PROCESS IN NJ
Civil Model Jury Charge3.30DABUSE OF PROCESS
The plaintiffs in this action allege that the defendant is liable for abuse of process.The defendant denies the allegation.
There
are two basic elements necessary to sustain the cause of action of
abuse of process. They are (1) that the defendant made an improper,
illegal and perverted use of the legal procedure, that is to say,
his/her resort to the legal process was neither warranted nor authorized
by law,[1]and (2) that the defendant had an ulterior motive in initiating the legal process.In other words, abuse of process is the misuse or misapplication of the legal procedure in a manner not contemplated by law.
Specifically,
the plaintiff contends that the defendant utilized the legal process to
intimidate, harass and coerce the plaintiff in order to obtain a
collateral advantage.In other words, the plaintiff contends
that the defendant invoked the legal process to accomplish some
unlawful end, namely, to compel the plaintiff to do some collateral
thing which he/she could not legally be compelled to do.
The
defendant denies this allegation and asserts that he, the defendant,
made a regular and legitimate use of the process. The defendant contends
that he/she employed the legal process to have his/her claims
adjudicated or to enforce legitimate claims.
In short, in order for the plaintiff to prevail in this action, he/she
must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant made an
improper, illegal, and perverted use of the process and that there
existed an ulterior motive or purpose on part of the defendant.
If you find that the use of the process was a proper one, then I charge
you as a matter of law that the motive is immaterial. The legal
pursuits of ones rights, no matter what may be the motive of the
promoter of the action, cannot be deemed either illegal or inequitable.
It is the misuse of the process, though properly obtained, which
constitutes the misconduct for which liability is imposed.
If you find, therefore, that the defendant made a perverted use of
legal procedure for which it was not designed, with an ulterior purpose,
than I charge you as a matter of law, the law provides a redress and
the defendant is thereby liable to the plaintiff.
NOTE TO JUDGE
SeeAsh v. Cohn, 119N.J.L. 54 (E. & A. 1937) in which the court distinguishes malicious abuse of process from an action for malicious use of process:
An
action for malicious abuse of process is distinguished from an action
for malicious use of process in that the action for abuse of process
lies for the improper, unwarranted and perverted use of process after it
has been issued while that for the malicious use of it lies for causing
process to issue maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause.Grainger v. Hill, 4Bing.
N.C. 212. Thus it is said, is substance, that the distinction between
malicious use and malicious abuse of process is that the malicious use
is the employment of process for its ostensible purpose, although
without reasonable or probable cause, whereas the malicious abuse is the
employment of a process in a manner not contemplated by law. Another
fundamental distinction is that in the case of malicious use it is
necessary to allege that the action in which the process was used has
terminated favorably to the plaintiff whereas in the case of the
malicious abuse no such allegation is necessary.Saliem v. Glovsky(1942), 132Me. 402; 172Atl.Rep. 4; 50C.J. 612, sec. 373. 119N.J.L. at p. 58.
Prosser comments on the distinction between these causes of action in his treatise as follows:
Abuse of process differs from malicious prosecution in that the gist of
the tort is not commencing an action or causing process to issue
without justification, but misusing, or misapplying process justified in
itself for an end other than that which it was designed to accomplish.
The purpose for which the process is used, once it is issued, is the
only thing of importance. Consequently, in an action for abuse of
process it is unnecessary for the plaintiff to prove that the proceeding
has terminated in his favor, or that the process was obtained without
probable cause or in the course of a proceeding begun without probable
cause. It is often said that proof of malice is required; but it seems
well settled that, except on the issue of punitive damages, this does
not mean spite or ill will, or anything other than the improper purpose
itself for which the process is used, and that even a pure spite motive
is not sufficient where process is used only to accomplish the result
for which it was created. Thus if the defendant prosecutes an innocent
plaintiff for a crime without reasonable grounds to believe him guilty,
it is malicious prosecution; if he prosecutes him with such grounds to
extort payment of a debt, it is abuse of process.Prosser on Torts, Chap. 22, sec. 121 at 856-857 (4th ed. 1971).
See alsoEarl v. Winne, 14N.J. 119, 135 (1953); 34N.J.Super. 605, 616 (Cty. Ct. 1955), andGambocz v. Apel,et al., 102N.J.Super. 123, 128-130 (App. Div. 1968),certif. denied, 52N.J. 485 (1968).
No comments:
Post a Comment